More than $100M worth of research may be tainted by govt lab misconduct

USGS accused the chemist of data manipulation by intentionally changing the results produced by the mass spectrometer. The chemist also failed to preserve the data. Further, the Bureau accused the chemist of failing to operate the mass spectrometer according to established practices, which constituted scientific misconduct. …given the widespread use of USGS data and publications by its many customers, scientific misconduct at the Inorganic Section has serious implications for energy and environmental decisions driven by information developed at the laboratory.

Hmmmm failing to preserve raw data seems to be a common way to hide data manipulation, and reminiscent of the Climate-gate affair

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.”

[…]

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Facts are the last thing that will matter. It's that exact problem that Goddard (Heller) doesn't deal with. If facts were the deciding factor there would be little or no debate. Throwing more and more factual data will not change anything.

And no, that is not satire.

"If you tell people the truth, make them laugh. Otherwise they will kill you"
-- Oscar Wilde

Scientific studies have actually shown that facts that go against a deep belief actually do not matter. Not even a little. The information never even reaches the rational brain. MRI scans can actually show this happening.

I know, it's hard to believe.

"If you tell people the truth, make them laugh. Otherwise they will kill you"

[T]o announce that first Peer Review Congress, I wrote: “There are scarcely any bars to eventual publication. There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature citation too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print”10.

Unfortunately, that statement is still true today,

Peer review is touted as a demonstration of the self-critical nature of science. But it is a human system. Everybody involved brings prejudices, misunderstandings and gaps in knowledge, so no one should be surprised that peer review is often biased and inefficient. It is occasionally corrupt, sometimes a charade, an open temptation to plagiarists. Even with the best of intentions, how and whether peer review identifies high-quality science is unknown. It is, in short, unscientific.

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

All the Oil Co's===including Krotch Brotheres===just have all their assets taken from them to immediately fund solar panels. Lots of waste in such a program: all for the public/world good. "Let's get her done!"

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

just like tobacco companies. They defrauded the public, lied to the public and shareholders about it, lied to Congress...ultimately got prosecuted for Fraud.

Fits Exxon and AGW like a glove. Referencing the need for "proof of the hypothesis" is a dishonest or uninformed dodge.

The over/under bet right now is whether or not "everyone" (except those on Exxon's Payroll to mouth otherwise) will recognize AGW before you and I die....thats how fast the end times are approaching for those who wish to deny what it obvious to everyone else.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

There is also no proof at all for EVERYTHING you have presented on this subject.

When the ice all melts and the methane is released to kill 95% of all life on Earth....perhaps 200 years from now, but 50/50 could well be sooner---THAT also will not be proof of AGW.

Just as there was no proof that refrigerants were opening a hole in the atmosphere and that stopping the use of refrigerants closed the hole up.

BEST EVIDENCE--is what hoomans act on.........Not Proof. That is but hypocritical misdirection used by SCIENCE DENIERS...because at best they think being in the minority is some kind of badge for independent thinking. Its actually: not being good thinkers at all.

Sucks to be you.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:.When the ice all melts and the methane is released to kill 95% of all life on Earth....perhaps 200 years from now, but 50/50 could well be sooner---THAT also will not be proof of AGW.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

As to your last panel of "Actual Climate Change Pronouncements---by Scientists" I have no doubt all may be true. But AGW TODAY is supported by 97% of scientist expressing an opinion who are also qualified climate scientists. The fact that one or a few dozen who knows who scientists made the quoted statements really is irrelevant.

You don't have to be a scientist to tell the difference between relevant and irrelevant statements in support of any given position. Yours are all irrelevant.

Sucks to be you.....so AGAIN...why do you post??? If the IPCC is wrong...what we get is cleaner air and ultimately a free energy source. When your non-sense is put in the trash or JAIL as it should be...we will avoid the destruction of most life on the planet if not human civilization. A disproportionate "bet" even ignoring the clear science.

Are you on Exxon's Payroll? ---- You don't have to tell us how much.............and don't quibble. ......................... .... (( as if ))

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: But AGW TODAY is supported by 97% of scientist expressing an opinion who are also qualified climate scientists.

But scientific analyses of peer review and consensus states:

"Everybody [97%] involved brings prejudices, misunderstandings and gaps in knowledge, so no one should be surprised that peer review is often biased and inefficient. It is occasionally corrupt, sometimes a charade, an open temptation to plagiarists. Even with the best of intentions, how and whether peer review identifies high-quality science is unknown. It is, in short, unscientific."

When alarmists attack the undeniable evidence provided skeptics with "but but but the 97% says", how much of their 97% is total BS. In a new article

“Peer Reviewed:” Science Losing Credibility As Large Amounts Of Research Shown To Be False the author states

Science today, in all fields, is plagued by corruption. Yet, more often than not, attempts to create awareness about scientific fraud — an issue that few journalists have been willing to address — are met with the response, “Well, is it peer-reviewed?”

Although good science should always be reviewed, using this label as a form of credibility can be dangerous, causing people to dismiss new information and research instantaneously if it doesn’t have it, particularly when that information counters long-held beliefs ingrained into human consciousness via mass marketing, education, and more.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

ROTFLMAO. As I said it doesnt matter how many links i provide, you will deny any and all evidence when it contradicts your gloom and doom. Top medical people have expressed great concerns about bogus peer review, but bobbo thinks he knows more than they and bobbo doesnt even read the peer reviewed literature.

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

Everything you know is the product of science.......overcoming all the fraud and shortcomings of its practitioners.

Your "science" critique is very much like, if not EXACTLY like, the God in the Gaps attack on science. ............ but science abides. You'd pay attention to that if you could.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

JIm Steele wrote:Hilarious, A guy who never reads scientific papers and admits not understanding them, lectures a scientist on what science is ROTFLMAO........showme......

I've linked you to the IPCC reports and NASA reports............ repeatedly. You just have to review "all" the evidence and authority.........BEFORE, not after, the filter you put it all thru.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

The truth is, the science of nature has been already too long made only a work of the brain and the fancy. It is now high time that it should return to the plainness and soundness of observations on material and obvious things. Robert Hooke, 1665

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

JIm Steele wrote:The federal government paid out as much as $51 million in green car subsidies for Volkswagen diesel vehicles based on falsified pollution test results, according to a Times analysis of the federal incentives. Such green car incentives have also gone to buyers of hybrid, electric and hydrogen fuel cell cars. But the EPA does not track aggregate figures for incentives paid out to buyers of specific models or brands. –Jerry Hirsch, Los Angeles Times, 22 September 2015

Kill one home invader and fail to drag him into your house and you go to jail for 20 years.

Kill millions to increase your bonus...... and you become the Secretary of State.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Two Swedish scientists have been found guilty of "misconduct in research" in a paper that they published in Science1 and later retracted. Their highly publicized work had suggested that tiny particles of plastic in the ocean harm fish.

Almost an interesting read...........but I'm confused. My one and only quick read was that the researchers work is removed because they did not actually do the study they refer to (studying fish off some remote island?) but then the actual violation is they violated standards regarding doing "ethical" animal studies or experimentation??.......... but I thought they didn't actually do the study???

I'm sure I read too fast as all I could think of was: What would these Swedes think of every post made by Jimbo?

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?